U.S. v. Wilder, No. 78-1725

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before HOLLOWAY and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER; BARRETT
• Citation: 621 F.2d 1077
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John William WILDER, a/k/a William John Wilder, a/k/a William Jay Wilder, Defendant-Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 78-1725
• Decision Date: 19 May 1980

Page 1077

621 F.2d 1077 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John William WILDER, a/k/a William John Wilder, a/k/a
William Jay Wilder, Defendant-Appellant. No. 78-1725. United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit. Argued Sept. 11, 1979.
Decided May 19, 1980.

Charles W. Daniels of Freedman, Boyd & Daniels, Albuquerque, N. M., for defendant-appellant.

Thomas S. Udall, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M. (R. E. Thompson, U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, with him on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before HOLLOWAY and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, District Judge. ^*

BARRETT, Circuit Judge.

John William Wilder (Wilder) appeals from a jury conviction finding him guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1), which declares it unlawful for a convicted felon to possess a firearm.

The sole issue on appeal involves the correctness of the trial court's refusal to grant Wilder's motion to dismiss the charges based upon his contention that his prior felony conviction was constitutionally infirm.

A factual background should aid in placing the issue in focus.

Wilder was convicted, some ten years prior to the instant prosecution, in an Indiana state court, following a guilty plea to a felony charge of burglarizing a grain elevator. When the instant charge was brought, Wilder moved to dismiss on the ground that his prior Indiana felony conviction for burglary was invalid because (a) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and (b) his guilty plea was involuntarily entered

Page 1078

because he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights.

The District Court conducted a full hearing on Wilder's motion to dismiss. Wilder testified at the hearing that following his arrest in Indiana: he requested the services of an attorney; thereafter he was provided the services of Attorney Jack Richert who was then deputy district attorney for the county, counsel for Wilder's wife in a pending divorce action, and a part time probation officer for the district court; that because of the "conflicts" seen by Wilder, he (Wilder) notified Richert that he did not wish to be represented by him; that Richert did not advise Wilder of his right to other counsel and that no attorney other than the prosecuting attorney thereafter consulted with or saw Wilder; that after several discussions with the prosecuting attorney, Wilder entered a guilty plea to the burglary offense based on an understanding he reached with the prosecutor that he would be placed on probation; that the court ordered a pre-sentence report which was prepared and submitted by Attorney Richert, serving as probation officer; that the pre-sentence report recommended that Wilder be sentenced to a term of from two to five years, and that this recommendation was adopted by the district court.

No transcript of the Indiana state court plea proceedings is available. However, docket entries from that proceedings reflect that Wilder's constitutional rights were explained to him, and that he acknowledged them. He specifically waived his right to be represented by counsel.

The federal district court, following the hearing on the motion to dismiss, stated that he did not believe Wilder's account of his alleged contacts with the deputy district attorney or Wilder's request for other counsel. The court stated that he found the statements contained in the state court docket entries credible.

After this case was orally argued, the...